Appeal No. 1998-1946
Application No. 08/629,991
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 13 and 15 through 18. No other claims 2
are pending in the application.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for producing a
flying toy. According to claim 13, the only independent claim
on appeal, the toy is cut from “a thin planar sheet of
relatively rigid plastic . . . along planes substantially
perpendicular to the plane of the sheet” to provide the toy 3
with “a plurality of equiangularly spaced arms extending from
a central hub.” Claim 13 additionally recites that the toy is
“devoid of any airfoil shaped surface.”
Claim 14 was amended after the final rejection. See2
the amendatory paper filed May 9, 1997.
3Appellant’s specification contains guidelines or
standards for determining the scope of the various terms
of degree recited in claim 13, namely the words “thin,”
“relatively” and “substantially.” For instance,
numerical examples are disclosed for measuring the scope
of the term “thin,” and an example of a plastic material
is disclosed for ascertaining the scope of the term
“relatively” in the phrase “relatively rigid.” Thus,
appellant’s specification appears to provide the
standards required in Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial
Crating & Packing Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568,
574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007